The Attorney General v. Lai Kwong-loi
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 15/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of four sentences. The Respondent was charged on five charges connected with a triad society. The last charge was not proceeded with. That left three charges of claiming to be a member of a triad society and one of inviting a person to be a member. The learned magistrate passed consecutive sentences of nine months' imprisonment on each charge, suspended for two years. That made a total of three years' imprisonment which was the maximum
|
CAAR000015/1980
----------------- Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Leonard & Cons, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 27th February 1981. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.: 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of four sentences. The Respondent was charged on five charges connected with a triad society. The last charge was not proceeded with. That left three charges of claiming to be a member of a triad society and one of inviting a person to be a member. The learned magistrate passed consecutive sentences of nine months' imprisonment on each charge, suspended for two years. That made a total of three years' imprisonment which was the maximum period within his jurisdiction. 2. The offences came to light as a result of the infiltration of a police officer into the society. He was invited by the Respondent to become a member. The officer was carrying on a hawking business. Another hawker interfered with his stall and the Respondent indicated to this other hawker that he was a member of a triad society, the implication being that that society would cause trouble if he did not move away. 3. The learned magistrate recognised that the sentence he was passing was the maximum which he could pass in terms of imprisonment and he indicated that the suspension was based solely upon the fact that the Respondent's wife was pregnant and about to have a child. But for that fact, he said, he might well have passed an immediate sentence of imprisonment. 4. In our view the sentence passed was clearly wrong in principle. This court has said that for offences of this kind an immediate custodial sentence is normally indicated. That does not mean that there cannot be a case where a suspension could be justified. However, it would not be right to pass a very heavy sentence of imprisonment and suspend it where an immediate custodial sentence would be appropriate. In our view the proper course here was to pass an immediate custodial sentence, although a short one. In the first instance we think that a sentence of six months' imprisonment, or possibly a little more, would have been appropriate. As this is a review, we shall allow the application and we shall substitute for the sentences imposed concurrent sentences of four months' imprisonment on each of the four charges. 27th February 1981. Representation: |